Dutch PM on trial for hate speech

Notice how no one talks of the westernisation of other lands by the Europeans either. Why do you suppose that is?

Have the Dutch apologised for their occupation and Dutch-ing of other lands yet? Will they be bringing their churches home from Indonesia?

Again its besides the point. Its irrelevant whether they have apologized or not. . Would it help solve the present problem arising in their society? No. If you want to start a thread on the Westernization of other lands you are welcome to do so in another thread. I mean if these new immigrants thought so poorly of the Dutch and see them as nothing but horrible colonizers and racists then they shouldn't go and live among them.
 
Again its besides the point. Its irrelevant whether they have apologized or not. . Would it help solve the present problem arising in their society? No. If you want to start a thread on the Westernization of other lands you are welcome to do so in another thread.

I think any society which deals with issues of integration should start at home. Pretty pointless expecting everyone else to do what they are themselves unwilling to.

Geert Wilders would have more validity if the Dutch were not training the Afghanis to adopt a western style of governance
 
Tell ya what. The dutch call home their own diaspora - God if only we'd thought of this earlier with South Africa - and then we can see what the situation looks like.

Err.. careful there. Wilders =! the Dutch.
 
Bells said:
It is amusing that there were no problems with Muslims before 9/11. It is also astounding that it was since 9/11 that we suddenly find that they are not integrated in society and persecute them for it.
This is not true.
 
I think any society which deals with issues of integration should start at home. Pretty pointless expecting everyone else to do what they are themselves unwilling to.

Geert Wilders would have more validity if the Dutch were not training the Afghanis to adopt a western style of governance

Well they are starting at home, this is about their nation. They are no longer colonizing anyone and they are not going to other nations in droves so your point is again irrelevant. This has nothing to do with Afghans since this issue isn't coming out of war overseas. Like I said there are other threads where you can discuss that.
 
Well they are starting at home, this is about their nation. They are no longer colonizing anyone and they are not going to other nations in droves so your point is again irrelevant. This has nothing to do with Afghans since this issue isn't coming out of war overseas. Like I said there are other threads where you can discuss that.

Its about their society. They have spent the last several centuries as colonisers, imposing their religion, politics and social mores on other countries. After impoverishing these lands, they now "welcome refugees" from impoverished lands [ to do the dirty jobs which are beneath them] and "expect" them to "conform" to the same values which they, along with their co-race/westerners/religionists/whatever, expect to continue imposing, even by extreme and continued violent occupation, on these other societies.

I think Europeans need to take a long in-depth look at their own history and their own racism and society, before telling anyone else what is right or wrong. How ironic it is, that the standard bearers of assimilation in modern times are those who wipe out the self determination of any society which does not resemble their own.
 
Its about their society. They have spent the last several centuries as colonisers, imposing their religion, politics and social mores on other countries. After impoverishing these lands, they now "welcome refugees" from impoverished lands [ to do the dirty jobs which are beneath them] and "expect" them to "conform" to the same values which they, along with their co-race/westerners/religionists/whatever, expect to continue imposing, even by extreme and continued violent occupation, on these other societies.

I think Europeans need to take a long in-depth look at their own history and their own racism and society, before telling anyone else what is right or wrong. How ironic it is, that the standard bearers of assimilation in modern times are those who wipe out the self determination of any society which does not resemble their own.

And? I mean so what? What does this topic have to do with this particular history. Europeans know full well their history of colonization. It simply has zero to do with the immigration and cultural problems they are facing now. And to answer your question yes they are expected to 'conform' to western values. You are full of western criticism but you haven't even come up with one issue that pertains to the topic at hand nor have you a solution.

So....
 
If you think the history of European racism and colonisation has nothing to do with their "Muslim problem" today or their "Jewish problem" yesterday, there is very little you can do to find a resolution.
 
If you think the history of European racism and colonisation has nothing to do with their "Muslim problem" today or their "Jewish problem" yesterday, there is very little you can do to find a resolution.

:bugeye:

Well you obviously don't understand what the discussion is all about.

There are huge differences between what happened to the Jews and what is happening in modern Europe in regards to immigration.
 
Last edited:
Ah you believe your media.

In that I saw Stevens do it on national TV, sure. Maybe it was a lizardoid in a Cat Stevens mask. You could hardly deny that some critics of that religion have been attacked. Maybe it was merely their bad Fortuyn?
 
In that I saw Stevens do it on national TV, sure. Maybe it was a lizardoid in a Cat Stevens mask. You could hardly deny that some critics of that religion have been attacked. Maybe it was merely their bad Fortuyn?

Don't believe your eyes!

The critics were perpetrators in their own attack:mad: Yeah its everyones' bad! Its like someone's non-existing ideology of whaat is.
 
In that I saw Stevens do it on national TV, sure. Maybe it was a lizardoid in a Cat Stevens mask. You could hardly deny that some critics of that religion have been attacked. Maybe it was merely their bad Fortuyn?

And so? How does that change anything wrt the reasons for the fatwa?

once again,

In keeping with most Muslim countries, Iran did not ban The Satanic Verses. It was even reviewed in an Iranian newspaper. But noticing the protests in India and Britain, a delegation of mullahs from the holy city of Qum read a section of the book to Khomeini, including the part featuring a mad imam in exile, which was an obvious caricature of Khomeini. As one British diplomat in Iran said: "It was designed to send the old boy incandescent." So it was that the Iranians delivered the fatwa, thus winning the competition to be the greatest haters of Rushdie, and therefore the West, and all that entailed.

As Khomeini put it in a speech nine days after the fatwa, The Satanic Verses was very important to what he called the "world devourers" because they had mobilised the "entire Zionism and arrogance behind it". The book, he went on, was a "calculated" attack by "colonialism" on the greatness and honour of the clergy. It's worth noting here that the book, written by an arch anti-colonialist, was indeed in part an attack, or at least satire, on the role of the clergy, the caste of priests that has no Qur'anic authority. In this newspaper, just before the fatwa, Rushdie had written: "A powerful tribe of clerics has taken over Islam. These are the contemporary Thought Police."
 
Don't believe your eyes! The critics were perpetrators in their own attack:mad:

Yeah, maybe we should just all believe whatever SAM says about all things in the world, then we could all be considered "unified" as well as "diverse". :D

Baron Max
 
And so? How does that change anything wrt the reasons for the fatwa?

You're not seriously arguing the rationality of the fatwa? What reasons would matter, specifically, in the call for the death of a writer and artist?

I thought you'd even gone so far at one point as to criticize the (much milder) charges levied against Holocaust-deniers. But somehow the 'reasons' for a death sentence for art matter? Not to put to fine a point on it, but: why should they?
 
No, I'm asking what Cat Stevens misguided or otherwise opinion has to do, with the reasons for Khomeini's fatwa. Iran did not ban the book, did they?

I mean we are still talking about the fatwa itself or is some other issue now under discussion?
 
No, I'm asking what Cat Stevens misguided or otherwise opinion has to do, with the reasons for Khomeini's fatwa. Iran did not ban the book, did they?

I mean we are still talking about the fatwa itself or is some other issue now under discussion?

Could you please stay on topic? I mean can you give me some indication that you actually care for the topic at hand? :shrug:
 
I'm following a discussion, one which I did not initiate. I'm sure its more comfortable to keep parroting falsehoods for your own edification, but as Fraggle is fond of pointing out, this is supposedly a place of science, where one is supposed to challenge blatant falsehoods.
 
Back
Top